%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL814-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 01:16:30 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.59s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.59s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 15 ( 15 usr; 10 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_substs__lemma_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otypings(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X3,X6,tc_Type_Otype),X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otypings(X1,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3),X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_substs__lemma_0) ).
cnf(cls_argsT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otypings(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_as____,v_Ts____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_argsT_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otypings(v_e____,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_Ts____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_uT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_uT_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otypings(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X3,X6,tc_Type_Otype),X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otypings(X1,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3),X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X5) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_substs__lemma_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otypings(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X3,X6,tc_Type_Otype),X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otypings(X1,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),X3),X4,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X5) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Type_Otypings(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_as____,v_Ts____),
cls_argsT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otypings(v_e____,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_Ts____),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,X1,v_T____)
| c_Type_Otypings(v_e____,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_Ts____) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
cls_uT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otypings(v_e____,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),v_as____,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_Ts____),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL814-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:16 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.59/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.59/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.59/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % new_bool_3 with pid 2122641 completed with status 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.59/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.59/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.59/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.59/0.56 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.59/0.56 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % new_bool_3 with pid 2122651 completed with status 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.59/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.59/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.59/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.59/0.56 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.59/0.56 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.59/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.59/0.56 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.59/0.56
% 0.59/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.59/0.56 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.59/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.59/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 682
% 0.59/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 249
% 0.59/0.56 % Initial clauses : 433
% 0.59/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 433
% 0.59/0.56 % Processed clauses : 2576
% 0.59/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 105
% 0.59/0.56 % ...subsumed : 1534
% 0.59/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 937
% 0.59/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 30
% 0.59/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.59/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.59/0.56 % Generated clauses : 7514
% 0.59/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5934
% 0.59/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Paramodulations : 7456
% 0.59/0.56 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.59/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 54
% 0.59/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 3488
% 0.59/0.56 % ...of those cached : 2867
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.59/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 598
% 0.59/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 151
% 0.59/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 9
% 0.59/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 141
% 0.59/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 297
% 0.59/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4120
% 0.59/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 7981
% 0.59/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 339
% 0.59/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 24866
% 0.59/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 21780
% 0.59/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 432
% 0.59/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8763
% 0.59/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 203
% 0.59/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 23
% 0.59/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.59/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 103051
% 0.59/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1578
% 0.59/0.56
% 0.59/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.56 % User time : 0.101 s
% 0.59/0.56 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.59/0.56 % Total time : 0.114 s
% 0.59/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4648 pages
% 0.59/0.56
% 0.59/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.56 % User time : 0.217 s
% 0.59/0.56 % System time : 0.023 s
% 0.59/0.56 % Total time : 0.240 s
% 0.59/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.59/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------